No single standard for the situation
“Our policy says one thing, the process says another, and our experienced people know all the exceptions.”
Our platform connects to your existing system enabling you to drive better decisions across your organization.
Authentia turns company policies, expert knowledge, past decisions and exceptions into clear standards, then continuously checks that critical decisions follow them creating a benchmark.
Sources of record
- Policy documents
- Past decisions
- Approvals & exceptions
- Customer records
- Claims history
- Files
- Spreadsheets
- Emails & attachments
anything else you keep
One Decision Standardapproved · versioned · in force
Your databases · your systems · your spreadsheets · one standard
The problem
Policies define intent. Procedures describe steps.
Authentia constructs operational reality.
Multiple systems of record hold pieces of evidence and context, while interpretation and exceptions happen in practice.
Similar situations are handled differently across the organization, across teams, partners, applications, and the way decisions are codified into AI.
Differences stay hidden
Leadership often sees the impact later, in audits, complaints, rework, losses, or historical dashboards.
Change creates new uncertainty
New policy, market conditions, systems, models, or automation can change behavior without a clear view of what was affected.
Replace small samples and manual reconstruction with a clearer operating view.
A process can be followed perfectly and still produce the wrong decision. Authentia focuses on the decision inside the process.
What changes with Authentia
Move from reconstruction to continuous visibility.
See where attention is actually needed.
Reduce repetitive review and focus expert time on meaningful exceptions and risk.
Catch important departures earlier.
Find differences before they become expensive financial, regulatory, customer, or operational outcomes.
Keep judgment and exceptions auditable.
Preserve who approved an exception, why it was allowed, and when that precedent should apply again.
Know what changed when the business changes.
Re-evaluate historical decisions and affected operations when standards, policy, systems, or markets change.
The standard
One operating standard for the decision.
Criteria, evidence, authority, exceptions, escalation and version history: connected, approved, and versioned like a control.
Criteria
The approved rules and requirements that define what the organization intends to happen.
Authority
Who can make the decision, at what threshold, and when referral or approval is required.
Approved cases
Reviewed examples that show how the standard applies in real operating situations.
The rulebook · what changed, and whenIllustrative
- v2.2First approved version of the rulebookApprovedApprovedNothing to recheck
- v2.3Raised what partners are allowed to approveApprovedApproved148 past decisions rechecked
- v2.4Tightened the storm and flood exposure limitCurrentAll rechecked
- v2.5New limit on how much risk can sit with one clientWaiting for sign-offWaiting for sign-off37 decisions to recheck first
When a rule changes, every past decision made under the old rule is checked again before the new one goes live. 37 are queued for v2.5.
Every version preserves what changed, who approved it, which benchmarks are affected, and which decisions require revalidation. The standard changes. The evidence should remember how.
Authentia issues no rating. You are measured against the standard your own experts approved, not against peers, and not against ours.
Sometimes the policy is wrong. Sometimes the decision is. The standard says which. It does not always move.
The lifecycle
Bring the standard together.
Compare every relevant decision against it.
Establish, compare, explain, assure, revalidate. One lifecycle, closing into a loop.
Credit line increase · BNK-2214Banking · one real-shaped case · illustrative
The rule
Anything above the limit needs a second opinion
Unless the file proves the risk is already covered, in the way the rulebook asks for.
What happened
Approved, with conditions
A senior credit officer signed it. She knew the client, and she checked the cover was real.
What did not match
The paperwork, not the judgement
The cover is genuine. The file just does not evidence it the way the rulebook requires.
What we did
Sent to the review team
Logged as a possible exception rather than a breach, because she was inside her own limit.
What changes
The rule is being rewritten
Thirty-seven decisions ran into the same wording this month. All of them get checked again once the new version is signed off.
· One decision, all five stages. Same case, same standard, every decider. That's what makes it a benchmark
AI & agents
Agents can scale decisions faster
than the business can explain the rules behind them.
The decision existed before the agent, and so did the policy, the authority and the escalation logic. Before an agent decides anything, it is measured against that same approved standard.
Do not rebuild the rules inside every agent
Centralize the approved criteria, exceptions and escalation boundaries once, and point every agent at them.
Test against real history
Run proposed behavior against historical cases, edge cases and expert-reviewed decisions before production.
Keep business context beyond the trace
Agent traces show what the system did. The standard shows whether it was allowed to.
Historical decisions are evidence. Not automatically truth.
Conformance measures agreement with the approved standard. It does not measure whether the standard produces good outcomes. A book can run at 100% conformance and still default.
app.authentia.ai/bench · shadow run · sample data
Which reasoning model decides closest to your standard?
2,109 decisions · standard v2.4
Model Aclosest to standard
94%closest to the approved standard overallin production
Model B
89%strictest at policy boundariescatalog
Model C
86%fastest on routine casescatalog
Model D
78%most permissive, highest override ratecatalog
Best model by decision type
Routine approvals
Model A · 96%
Policy-boundary cases
Model B · 93%
Incomplete files
Model A · 91%
When the bench disagrees, no verdict is issued
When they disagree it goes to a person, instead of being averaged into a score. 190 of 2,109 decisions in this run had no clear majority and were escalated.
Model names appear in your instance, not on this site · illustrative run
Calibration
Calibrate the weights.
The criteria stay as approved.
Adjust how much each approved rule counts, the way your desk actually weighs them. Every round is re-tested on approved cases the tuning never saw. The criteria are not learned from behaviour. They are the ones your policy owner signed.
Clause weightsround 1 / 4
Concentration limits
Documentation strictness
Relationship weight
Gap to approved cases9.8%
Gap above threshold
Your reviewers approve the rulebook · every round logged · illustrative
Adoption
Establish the measurement first.
Act on it second.
Nothing changes hands to produce a baseline. A person is in command throughout.
decision on recordcase INS-2101 → Approve
measured against v2.4case INS-2101 → In standard · logged only
measured as it happens · nothing changes hands
conformance to standard88%
2,109 decisions253 departuresillustrative
routine approvalsagent
policy-boundary caseshuman
incomplete filesagent
Compliance
Critical decision evidence belongs
inside an enterprise-grade operating model.
Existing systems stay in place
Connect evidence without replacing the systems that execute the work.
Version history matters
Know which policy, rule, or standard applied when a decision was made.
Human authority is preserved
Keep review, approval, escalation, and legitimate judgment explicit.
Security is part of deployment
Data handling, access, retention, and architecture are explicit in every enterprise implementation.
Data remains inside your perimeterHuman in commandEvidence retained by versionDelivered, deployed, owned by you
Which critical decision would you
least want to explain after it goes wrong?
Start with the decision where review is manual, exceptions are hard to trace, or the evidence is scattered. Bring the policy, historical cases, and approval history. See where current practice departs from what the business intended.